David M. Brown

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside its order denying Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. a rate increase for certain transportation costs.

The Divisional Court had found that the OEB erred in law by improperly using hindsight in its 'prudence' review of Enbridge's contracts.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the OEB's order, holding that when read as a whole, the OEB's reasons did not demonstrate a misuse of hindsight or legal error.

The Court also confirmed the OEB had standing to appeal the Divisional Court's decision.

The appellant vendor agreed to sell commercial land to the respondent purchaser, conditional on obtaining severance approval under the Planning Act.

The Committee of Adjustment granted severance but required the vendor to construct and dedicate a road extension.

The vendor attempted to terminate the agreement, arguing the condition was unreasonable and frustrated the contract.

The purchaser sued for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision granting specific performance, finding that the contract clearly obligated the vendor to obtain necessary consents at its expense, the doctrine of frustration did not apply as the condition was foreseeable, and the property was unique.

The appellant union's members were locked out by the respondent employer.

Union members distributed leaflets outside the premises of four non-employer respondents who sold the employer's products.

The union members did not trespass or block vehicles.

The respondents obtained an injunction against the union, arguing the leafleting was prohibited secondary picketing under s. 104(2) of the New Brunswick Industrial Relations Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 104(2) must be interpreted in light of s. 5(4) of the Act and the Charter to prohibit only persuasion that is coercive, intimidating, threatening, or intended to cause undue influence, and therefore does not prohibit peaceful leafleting.

Parents who, for religious reasons, sent their children to private Jewish and Christian schools challenged Ontario’s refusal to fund those schools and to extend school health support services to students attending them.

The appeal raised Charter claims under ss. 2(a) and 15(1), together with the constitutional significance of s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and s. 29 of the Charter.

The majority held that the non-funding of dissentient religious schools did not violate the appellants’ Charter rights, emphasizing the constitutional structure governing denominational school rights and the absence of any positive entitlement to state support for religious education.

The majority also held that the School Health Support Services Program was properly characterized as an education service linked to the public system and therefore did not infringe the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed, with partial dissents on the equality and school health support issues.